No One's 10e Lists

[piersonsmuppet]

Jun 27, 2023 6:57:51 GMT dkng said:

On paper HG seems fun and fine but in practice - not so much. Their Overwatch is a waste of CPs even on 4+ to hit. Impalers are weak, lack volume, and when shooting indirect are ap0. Don’t get me even started on Shockcannons which are a bad joke. Biovores are also ap0 when shooting oos but they at least have a chance to do mortals and most importantly can seed mines which can score you secondaries and impede enemies’ movement. They do well when you take more of them - a single one or a pair will always feel underperforming.
For 200 pts I’ll take 5 Bios over 6 HGs every single time. Proven in test games, not with theroycrafring.
Cheers.

I’m talking from the point of they performed better on the table than plain running the numbers. My marine opponent was moving to stay in cover/out if LoS, so they gave me a free barbgaunt effect on 1+ units a turn. I also usually had one HG sticking out so that the unit had LoS, i didn’t usually deal with indirect shooting (when I did I spiked). Granted, I play on pre-placed somewhat open tables; HG are probably not as great on WTC or player placed where they can really only fire indirect. Overwatch was good, they equal almost anything on avgs in the book because of the 4+. I didn’t find it a waste of CP, though I ran Tyrant + SL and had plenty to “throw away”. That said, they aren’t great output (neither are biovores), but I wouldn’t call them trash (especially with aeldari looking to be a boogeyman).

Now in general curiosity, does 200 pts of biovores score positional secondaries better than 80? From No One’s comments I kind of assume no, but maybe you’ve experienced differently. I just don’t see why I want to spend more pts to increase the shooting output of a unit that is mainly used to score (and can do so at minimum investment).

[No One]

piersonsmuppet said:

Now in general curiosity, does 200 pts of biovores score positional secondaries better than 80? From No One’s comments I kind of assume no

There's 4 secondaries that could care about more than one spore mine unit:
- BEL (2 max)
- Engage (could go to the Ro3 max, but in practice I'd expect other units to be already counting for 2 quarters most of the time)
- Cleanse (in practice 2 max due to scoring caps, and also needs a unit already there to be holding the objective)
- Investigate Signals (actually really good for Ro3 max, but tactical)

Outside of those, there's also another strong fixed option in deploy homers (just better BEL in this context), and there's only one other tactical they could score by existing (area denial).

So basically, outside niche situations and one tactical, when you consider that you get diminishing returns on scoring, can often fill with your actual units, or double up with bios, I think 2x1 would generally be sufficient for all scoring needs (especially if planning for tactical: can't help scoring for over half the deck). I definitely think 3x1 would be reasonable to secure max VP and for more reliable bodyblock opportunities in addition, but paying a bit extra for gargs for more aggressive bodyblocks and giving some scoring options when bios would otherwise be screened seems better to me at the moment.

[dkng]

Heeey if you don’t like mortals with 48” range then don’t take the Biovores. I’m not trying to force anything…

[No One]

Heeey if you don’t like mortals with 48” range then don’t take the Biovores.

Reliable MWs at 48" for 40 pts would be great. It's not that (essentially 1/6 at best for the dev wound proc is bad odds), and reliable MWs for say 360 pts is just bad (yes that's where you're going to have to be to get reliable MWs baseline, and even then 20% chance for no mortals, though of course you do still have the regular output. Blast helps, but reliable MWs is best as a finisher, which doesn't apply with blast). So you can't use them as reliable chip, at which point it's just a fancy way of saying output, and the output's pretty bad by comparison to our actual shooting units. Especially with people teching for anti-ignores LoS (towering/other indirect) and dev wounds with stuff like lone op for backfield sitters and 4+++ against MWs, I don't see a use case.

I’m not trying to force anything…

Of course not. But you are making a suggestion and arguing in it's favour, presumably to convince the other party to support that suggestion. So in the spirit of discussion I'm making counter points to a stance I don't agree with. If there's further arguments for I'll consider them, otherwise I'll be satisfied that my reasoning is sound.

[trashcan01]

I am so happy with my 2x Rupture Cannon Tyrannofexes. I'm never leaving my home without them.
On a lucky roll a single one drops a tank per turn.
Durable enough to sit on the backfield objective and shoot at the enemy, and if required they can Advance alongside Tyrant and still shoot reasonably well during the 1st turn.
Two of them provide enough Anti-tank, and Zoans can try to finish the job if something stays alive after their shooting.

Don't you think having 2x Exos is a bit of an overkill? You could try dropping one and replacing it with 3x Zoanthropes.

[No One]

trashcan01 said:

Don't you think having 2x Exos is a bit of an overkill? You could try dropping one and replacing it with 3x Zoanthropes.

*looks at current list with 3x exo* Not currently . Exos seem a solid generalist shooting platform which can perform into basically any target through blast and lethal hits+solid damage, on a cheap and relatively durable chassis. Zoans on the other hand have output but not survivability, where this is trying to defensively statcheck: I'm skeptical that'll work for anything other than midtables, since I think people will skewing for AT a lot, but I doubt we're really competitive beyond mid tables sooo... Similarly I don't think a couple more zoans don't help much when that statcheck doesn't work. And if I want to play a more infantry and scoring focused list with just a bit of punch, I'll play GSC because I think they're both better and more interesting at that.

Similarly t-fex is the inverse, losing output for points but gaining defence: which I think is fine, but I think acid fits with that role far better than rupture and at the price point I'm not sure if the defence bump is worth it.

Biggest concern is moving around and getting sightlines: yet to play on a '10e' map, and my test game was into knights, where towering meant I never actually needed to worry about LoS.

On a lucky roll a single one drops a tank per turn.

I like my AT to not be lucky rolls to be good . The swingy-ness definitely puts me off and exo's basically as good (or better AT) for points. Though it would give me a good spot to use free CP rr if I've got nothing better to do on my turn, and you've got stingers and defensive stats, so I won't say it's a total no-go. But not something I feel super lacking in, at least in my current basically-theorycrafting stage.

[dkng]

S8 can’t be called AT in 10th when it is wounding a Rhino on 5+ and can still be saved against. Statistically it won’t even kill a 50 points Trukk.

[trashcan01]

I fail to see why would you consider Exocrine a better Anti-Tank than Tyrannofex with a Rupture Cannon.
Yes, they are cheaper, but even shooting at a Leman Russ you'd need some high rolls to drop one.
I don't know, pointwise it's 3 Exocrines vs 2 Tyrannofexes.
High volume of shots would benefit Lethal Hits vs Vehicles I guess; also help against 4++ situations. Math is in the favor of the Exos?

[pokesers]

10th has brought my nids back out of retirement and this thread is the most detailed discussion of our current options I have seen so I'll throw my ideas in here.

Neurotyrant wants tyrant guard 100%. It is far too squishy without them and per the designers commentary, they give it infantry so it can walk through walls. I like the neurotyrant because it takes our admittedly bad army rule and makes it ok. It's kinda swingy but can completely flip a game. Give the neuro the redeploy too as you have already because that enhancement is pure money.

Biovores are pure money. I will be running 3 every time. Move blocks, decent indirect and good secondary game makes them super versatile.

I am actually a big fan of gaunt carpets for screening and objective control. The regen strat is icing that makes them great. 20 seems a good size unit that can't be fully picked up without significant investment, especially if you pop 5+++. This means you are very likely to get value from the regen strat and can use it to flip objectives before you score.

I like the walkrant with adaptive biology. It's pretty beefy and free strats are great.

Exocrines, tyrannofex and barbgaunts all feel like nice shooting platforms and I happily include them all.

A single lictor is nice to sit on a home, a second is nice to rapid ingress for free.

I don't know how to feel about carnifexes and ooe yet. They are cheap enough but dont do a huge amount.

Psychophage is a nice 1 of. The aura is great and the psycher hate is fringe useful in some matches.

All in all I like nids a lot this edition.

[No One]

dkng said:

S8 can’t be called AT in 10th when it is wounding a Rhino on 5+ and can still be saved against. Statistically it won’t even kill a 50 points Trukk.

Good damage and AP with lethal's pretty fine. Not what I'd call amazing dedicated AT or anything, but for 135 pts? Quite good. Running MCs a lot in 9e, I really hated going into auto wounds on 6s: most of the games where I lost most/all of my MCs were due to that, with a lot of them generally wounding on 5s (or even 6s) base anyway. So yeah, lethal on a good damage profile can definitely get the job done.

Know what also can't kill a 50 pt trukk on average? 200 pts rupture t-fex .

trashcan01 said:

High volume of shots would benefit Lethal Hits vs Vehicles I guess; also help against 4++ situations. Math is in the favor of the Exos?

Per point and with lethal yeah, just slightly (see svknoe's docs). I was using lethal on the exo only already and don't think I realised, so previous statements aren't quite accurate, but general sentiment's still correct. I think lethal's a reasonable assumption to make: AT is definitely more of an issue than anti-infantry, lethal is a more powerful rule than sustained 1, and in any situation where there's tanks but not sufficient/important enough to warrant lethal...I don't think I'd want a rupture cannon either.

pokesers said:

Neurotyrant wants tyrant guard 100%. It is far too squishy without them and per the designers commentary, they give it infantry so it can walk through walls.

Nope: it gives the unit Infantry, but moving through walls is on a model Keyword basis. Also they're about as tanky as t-guard with 4++ for 10 pts more (albeit 3 less wounds and no '2+' for chip or spill protection) and not something that feels all that important.

I don't know how to feel about carnifexes and ooe yet. They are cheap enough but dont do a huge amount.

It's almost 400 pts for the unit, not what I'd call cheap. Seem to do plenty if they make combat and the shooting's OK: can they make combat reliably enough for that? Eh?

Psychophage is a nice 1 of. The aura is great and the psycher hate is fringe useful in some matches.

I could see it, but feels it competes too much with strat.

[nidsallday]

Jun 28, 2023 15:55:15 GMT trashcan01 said:

I fail to see why would you consider Exocrine a better Anti-Tank than Tyrannofex with a Rupture Cannon.
Yes, they are cheaper, but even shooting at a Leman Russ you'd need some high rolls to drop one.
I don't know, pointwise it's 3 Exocrines vs 2 Tyrannofexes.
High volume of shots would benefit Lethal Hits vs Vehicles I guess; also help against 4++ situations. Math is in the favor of the Exos?

Both have Heavy-Keyword on their weapon, hence i omitted it and just went with "both had to move to get LoS".
To make it a bit more readable: D/P = Damage per Pointscost

No Hyper-Adaptation
Razorback (T9, Sv 3+, 10 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D): 1.44 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 3.61 Damage (D/P: 0.0267)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 1.11 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 7.78 Damage (D/P: 0.0389)

Repulsor (T12, Sv 3+, 16 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D): 1.44 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 3.61 Damage (D/P: 0.0267)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 0.89 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 6.22 Damage (D/P: 0.0311)

Hyper-Aggression (Lethal Hits against Vehicle):
Razorback (T9, Sv 3+, 10 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D): 1.93 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 4.81 Damage (D/P: 0.0356)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 1.15 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 8.04 Damage (D/P: 0.0402)

Repulsor (T12, Sv 3+, 16 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D): 1.93 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 4.81 Damage (D/P: 0.0356)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 0.96 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 6.74 Damage (D/P: 0.0337)


Tyrannofex is more damage per points for vehicles with less then or equal to T9 (because of S18 on RC). As soon as Tyranno looses 2+ to Wound because of S/T Exo can benefit more from Lethal Hits. If you dont have Lethal Hits Tyranno is, statistically, better anti-tank in a D/P view. The next breakpoint would be T16 (as this would let Exo only wound on 6+, but Tyranno still on 3+) which would put Tyranno in an even better position compared to Exo.
Buuuut, of course Tyrannofex is super swingy and i only calculated with mathematical mean values for dice rolls.

[trashcan01]

Did you calculate rr1 for Exocrines?
I mean, we are comparing 3x Exocrines vs 2 Tyrannofexes.

[No One]

nidsallday said:

Tyrannofex is more damage per points for vehicles with less then or equal to T9 (because of S18 on RC).

You sure about less than? 'Cause exo's wounding on 4s into T8 and 3s for T7...

That said, another factor in the t-fex's favour is that AP-4 vs AP-3 is better for cover models.

trashcan01 said:

Did you calculate rr1 for Exocrines?
I mean, we are comparing 3x Exocrines vs 2 Tyrannofexes.

No, which is realistically correct: sightlines are an issue, and even that aside good odds that the first two kill. The exception would be knights/other towering, where...well, you're almost certainly taking lethal, they'll often have an invul already, so t-fex already falls behind per point. But the rrs is an ~11% increase for the 'net' output of the 3, which is solid but not really changing the general take away. Which is they're similar anti-tank (exo relying more on the adapt), t-fex gets durability while exo gets generalist.

[nidsallday]

Jun 29, 2023 12:20:54 GMT trashcan01 said:

Did you calculate rr1 for Exocrines?
I mean, we are comparing 3x Exocrines vs 2 Tyrannofexes.

i was calculating 1 exo vs 1 tyranno, hence, no rerolls calculated. but following with rr1:


No Hyper-Adaptation
Razorback (T9, Sv 3+, 10 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, blank): 1.44 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 3.61 Damage (D/P: 0.0267)
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, rr1 to hit): 1.69 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 4.21 Damage (D/P: 0.0312)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 1.11 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 7.78 Damage (D/P: 0.0389)

-> Result (D/P)
    3x Exo (with two having rr1): 0.0297
    2x Tyranno: 0.0389


Repulsor (T12, Sv 3+, 16 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, blank): 1.44 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 3.61 Damage (D/P: 0.0267)
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, rr1 to hit): 1.69 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 4.21 Damage (D/P: 0.0312)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 0.89 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 6.22 Damage (D/P: 0.0311)

-> Result (D/P)
    3x Exo (with two having rr1): 0.0297
    2x Tyranno: 0.0311


Hyper-Aggression (Lethal Hits against Vehicle):
Razorback (T9, Sv 3+, 10 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, blank): 1.93 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 4.81 Damage (D/P: 0.0356)
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, rr1 to hit): 2.53 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 6.32 Damage (D/P: 0.0468)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 1.15 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 8.04 Damage (D/P: 0.0402)

-> Result (D/P)
    3x Exo (with two having rr1): 0.0431
    2x Tyranno: 0.0402


Repulsor (T12, Sv 3+, 16 Wounds):
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, blank): 1.93 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 4.81 Damage (D/P: 0.0356)
Exocrine (D6+3, BS 3+, S8, AP-3, 3D, rr1 to hit): 2.53 wounding hits at AP-3 3D -> 6.32 Damage (D/P: 0.0468)
Tyrannofex (2, BS 3+, S18, AP-4, 2D6): 0.96 wounding hits at AP-4 2D6 -> 6.74 Damage (D/P: 0.0337)

-> Result (D/P)
    3x Exo (with two having rr1): 0.0431
    2x Tyranno: 0.0337

Conclussion:
If you've got Lethal hits with 2 out of 3 Exos having rr1 they become more efficient then two Tyrannos without rr. Without Lethal Hits Tyrannos are more efficient.
As mentioned in older post T16 might be another breakpoint where Exos lose out, but as it is pretty rare I didnt do the calc.

[nidsallday]

Jun 29, 2023 14:57:29 GMT No One said:

nidsallday said:

Tyrannofex is more damage per points for vehicles with less then or equal to T9 (because of S18 on RC).

You sure about less than? 'Cause exo's wounding on 4s into T8 and 3s for T7...

That said, another factor in the t-fex's favour is that AP-4 vs AP-3 is better for cover models.

trashcan01 said:

Did you calculate rr1 for Exocrines?
I mean, we are comparing 3x Exocrines vs 2 Tyrannofexes.

No, which is realistically correct: sightlines are an issue, and even that aside good odds that the first two kill. The exception would be knights/other towering, where...well, you're almost certainly taking lethal, they'll often have an invul already, so t-fex already falls behind per point. But the rrs is an ~11% increase for the 'net' output of the 3, which is solid but not really changing the general take away. Which is they're similar anti-tank (exo relying more on the adapt), t-fex gets durability while exo gets generalist.

i was assuming T9 vehicle as "on the lower end of T for vehicles". but of course, with S8 weapon on Exo they gain quite a bit into T8 vehicles.

i re-calculated with 2 out of 3 exos having rr1. they def do benefit off of lethal hits quite a bit. was actually pretty surprised that it gets quite clear cut that Exos are getting more efficient into vehicles with Lethal and 2/3 having rr1.